If you have "no place to go," come here!

Fed: Six (6) more years of high DISemployment


Submitted by jawbone on

factors improving gradually over the 5-6 years. YIKES!

Somewhat more than half of the participants judged that, in the absence of any additional shocks to the economy, the economy would converge fully to its longer-run rates of output growth, unemployment, and inflation within about five or six years; the rest indicated that it could take longer for unemployment to fall back to its longer-run rate or for inflation to rise back to the level they deemed desirable in the longer run. (My emphasis of qote from Fed report)

Long term feature - and with an increasingly ripped and weakened or destroyed social safety net.

Major YIKES!

(Should this be a front pager?)

Submitted by lambert on

I can't put together a post right now, but if you want to... There's plenty of material. Google on DISemployment...

MoveThatBus's picture
Submitted by MoveThatBus on

sure these predictions come true? Or, will people actually take matters into their own hands and find the solutions a handful of gov't members don't seem inclined to seek out. Remember, the people in charge like the way this is going, so if they can keep us down long enough to turn the entire middle class into slave labor, don't you think they would?

Submitted by jm on

Ten years ago I returned to school to finish the education I had given up on twenty years earlier. In the course of doing so, I managed an ongoing economic indicator project for two years that tracks monthly economic activity in the rural county where the state university is located. While the model we used includes variables corresponding to activity in retail, manufacturing, hospitality, etc., the overwhelmingly dominate factor, in terms of its significance to the models' value, is employment. In other words, the single most important factor in the vitality of a rural economy is the extent to which the local population is employed. This observation is hardly surprising, but it's interesting, at least to me, that it has such strong econometrical support.

My point here is that economic policymakers, knowing this, are effectively writing off the wellbeing of rural economies throughout the country, but especially where agriculture plays a less dominate role in overall activity (agriculture often being highly subsidized). The most recent reading of the unemployment rate in my rural CA county, where the economy depends on resource extraction and tourism, is just under 15%. I suspect that in my town, which is the county's most remote, it's well over 20%. This is the nominal level.

With the Austerian Movement in ascendancy, I keep thinking of a film we were shown in grade school back in the late 1960s about hunger in Appalachia and the suffering real people endured during a time of prosperity in the richest nation in the history of the world, and I shudder.